5 

347 

030 


CALIFORNIA 
STATE    BOARD    OFJFORESTRY 


CIRCULAR    No.    5 


A 

0! 
0 

0 


THE 


IN 


CALIFORNIA 


1914 


CAUFOBNIA 
STATE  PBINTINO  OITIOBX 


NOV181937 


STATE  BOARD  OF  FORESTRY. 


HIRAM  W.  JOHNSON___ Governor 

FRANK  C.  JORDAN Secretary  of  State 

U.  S.  WEBB Attorney  General 

G.  MORRIS  HOMANS—  __State  Forester 


OFEICE  OF  STATE  FORESTER. 


G.  MORRIS  HOMANS State  Forester 

ALEXANDER  W.  DODGE Deputy 

J.  DIEHL  SCHOELLER Assistant 

H.  E.  McKENZIE Forest  Engineer 

E.   F.   CAREY Secretary 

J.   A.    HABNEY—  __Clerk 


THE   FOREST   PROTECTION  PROBLEM 
IN  CALIFORNIA. 

ALIFORNIA  stands  third  in  the  extent  of  her 
forest  wealth.  Where  does  she  stand  in  the  prac- 
tice of  forest  protection?  The  answer  to  this 
question  is  decidedly  inconsistent  with  the  fact 
that  conditions  in  our  State  demand  special  precautionary 
measures  for  the  protection  of  forest  areas.  Many  states 
have  developed  and  are  now  enjoying  effective  protective 
forest  policies.  California  has  done  practically  nothing 
to  insure  the  conservation  of  her  forests.  Is  the  problem 
worth  solving  ?  It  can  not  be  denied  that  forests  affect,  in 
some  way,  every  industry,  and  further,  produce  a  marked 
effect  upon  the  health  and  happiness  of  the  citizens  of  the 
State.  What  must  be  accomplished  will  be  accomplished, 
but  not  before  we  as  citizens  demand  that  it  shall  be.  We 
have  passed  the  time  beyond  which  further  delay  means 
loss  of  time,  money  and,  above  all,  human  lives.  The  prob- 
lem is  neither  the  discovery  of  some  suitable  machine  of 
operation  nor  the  preparation  of  lengthy,  in-need-of- 
amendment  bills;  but  resolves  itself  primarily  into  the 
hearty  support  and  adoption  of  measures  already  intro- 
duced in  our  legislature  and  already  passed  and  in  effec- 
tive operation  in  other  states.  A  brief  historical  outline 
of  forest  legislation  in  California  will  show  clearly  the 
situation. 

The  first  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  forestry  work  in 
California  found  expression  in  an  act  passed  March  3, 
1885,  creating  a  state  board  of  forestry.  At  first  this  board 
acted  in  the  capacity  of  a  commission  of  inquiry  with 
emphasized  educational  functions.  By  an  amendment 
police  powers  were  conferred  in  1887  for  the  purpose  of 
making  arrests  for  any  violation  of  any  .law  applying  to 
forest  and  brush  land  within  the  State,  or  prohibiting  the 
destruction  thereof,  with  an  appropriation  of  $30,000.00 


for  the  following  two  years.  Two  experiment  stations 
were  maintained,  and  the  board  published  three  reports 
on  the  forest  conditions  and  the  forest  trees  of  the  State. 
Little  could  be  accomplished  in  efficient  protective  work, 
and,  suffering  at  the  hands  of  reckless  politicians,  the  act 
was  repealed  in  1893.  Possession  and  supervision  of  the 
experiment  stations  passed  over  to  the  State  University, 
and  the  board  of  forestry  was  abolished. 

The  act  of  March  16,  1903  (Stat.  1903,  p.  171,  Ch.  CLV, 
Cal.),  provides  as  follows:  ''The  state  board  of  examiners 
is  hereby  empowered  to  enter  into  contracts  *  *  *  with 
the  chief  of  the  bureau  of  forestry  and  the  department  of 
agriculture  for  the  purpose  of  studying  the  forest  resources 
of  the  State  and  their  proper  conservation,  and  especially 
with  a  view  of  formulating  a  proper  state  forest  policy, 
to  the  extent  of  fifteen  thousand  dollars.  *  *  *" 

The  act  of  March  18, 1905  (Stat.  1905,  p.  152,  Ch.  CLVII, 
Cal.),  provides  as  follows:  "The  state  board  of  examiners 
is  hereby  empowered  to  enter  into  contracts  *  *  *  with 
the  chief  of  the  bureau  of  forestry  and  the  department 
of  agriculture  for  the  purpose  of  studying  the  forest 
resources  of  the  State  and  their  proper  conservation,  and 
especially  with  a  view  of  formulating  a  proper  state 
forestry  policy  to  the  extent  of  ten  thousand  dollars.  *  *  *  " 

Cooperation  under  the  provisions  of  the  above  acts  was 
secured  and  field  investigations  were  begun  by  agents  of 
the  Forest  Service  on  July  1,  1903,  and  the  final  reports 
were  completed  in  the  spring  of  1907. 

The  fire  study  was  finished  in  time  for  the  1905  session 
of  the  legislature,  "and  a  bill  embodying  the  views  of  the 
United  States  Forest  Service"  was  introduced.*  This 
bill  was  supported  by  the  Forest  Service,  the  California 
Water  and  Forest  Association,  by  other  associations  and 
by  public-spirited  individuals.  It  aimed  toward  adequate 
provision  for  forest  fire  protection  by  the  State.  The  bill 
was  strongly  opposed  but  finally  passed  as  the  act  of 
March  18,  1905  (Annual  Fire  Report,  1913,  Cal.,  p.  77), 

*Keport  of  the  Fifth  National  Conservation  Congress,  "Fire  Prevention  by  States, 
by  the  Federal  Government  and  by  Private  Interests,"  page  25. 


after  destructive  amendments  had  eliminated  practically 
all  of  the  protective  features.  This  is  the  law,  with  a  few 
amendments  (Annual  Fire  Eeport,  1913,  Cal.,  p.  83), 
under  which  we  are  working  to-day. 

THE  FOREST  LAW  NOW  IN  FORCE. 

Under  the  present  law  the  State  Forester  is  limited  in 
his  service  to  the  State  by  the  following  unfortunate  cir- 
cumstances : 

1.  No  money  is  set  aside  for  state  fire  protection.    This 
obviously  prevents  the  execution  of  essential  measures  by 
the  State  Board  of  Forestry. 

2.  The  State  has  no  greater  working  force  than  the 
voluntary  firewardens  who  serve  willingly  and  unwillingly 
without  compensation.     The  system  has  failed  wherever 
it  has  been  employed. 

3.  The  State  owns  and  maintains  no  forest  reserves.    No 
forest  experiment  stations  or  forest  nurseries  are  operated 
by  the  State. 

4.  There    is    an    organized    opposition    to    legislation 
directed  toward  the  establishment  of  a  strong  and  effective 
forest  policy.     This  opposition  has  found  expression  in 
an  endeavor  to  embarrass  measures  proposed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  actual  state  activity  and  state  supervision  of  forest 
protection. 

5.  The  present  law  enables  the  State  Board  of  Forestry 
to  make  a  few  special  field  investigations,  but  the  scope  is 
not  broad  enough  to  include  sufficient  protective  work. 
When  money  is  spent  for  fighting  fires,  it  is  done  at  the 
expense  of  other  departments  of  the  work  if  such  money 
is  not  appropriated  for  fire  protection. 

OPPOSITION  TO  NEEDFUL  FOREST  LAWS. 

The  fact  remains  that  California  has  spent  many  thou- 
sand dollars  in  an  endeavor  to  secure  a  strong  forest 
policy;  and  the  purpose  of  this  expenditure  has  been 


largely  defeated  by  opposition.  Opposing  factors  have 
failed  to  present  measures  and  means  equally  sufficient  to 
meet  the  requirements.  Objection  to  forest  regulation  by 
the  State  may  be  expected  on  the  part  of  individuals  who 
fail  to  view  the  fire  danger  in  its  true  light.  If  proper 
restrictions  had  been  voluntarily  imposed  by  a  majority  of 
lumbermen  and  landowners,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  legis- 
lation directed  toward  state  supervision  of  forest  protec- 
tion would  be  generally  approved.  We  believe  that  there 
can  not  be  any  well  directed  opposition  to  a  strong  state 
forest  protective  plan — a  plan  which  recognizes  the  limi- 
tation of  economic  conditions;  and  that  private  owners 
should  not  be  required  to  adopt  a  practice  which  entails  a 
financial  loss;  and  that  the  State  should  undertake  to 
accomplish  protection  for  the  benefit  of  the  public. 

DURING  THE  1913  SESSION. 

Two  forestry  bills  were  introduced  during  the  last 
session.  One,  which  made  provision  for  an  adequate  sys- 
tem of  fire  patrols,  for  fire  fighting  and  an  appropriation 
for  this  purpose,  received  the  hearty  support  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Federation  of  Women's  Clubs.  This  bill  embraced 
practically  all  of  the  essential  features  contained  in  the 
proposed  bill  of  1905  for  which  California  spent  $25,000.00 
in  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Forest  Service,  in  secur- 
ing data  requisite  to  the  preparation  of  such  an  adequate 
state  forest  policy.  The  second  bill  endorsed  the  method 
of  letting  the  various  associations  do  the  work  in  coopera- 
tion with  the  State,  but  provided  that  expenses  be  paid  not 
by  the  State.  In  our  opinion,  this  intermediate  step  is 
unnecessary.  There  are  but  few  protective  associations  in 
California  and  conditions  now  demand  that  the  State 
tackle  bigger  things,  plans  that  will  yield  results.  Neither 
bill  became  law.  In  the  general  budget  $50,000.00  was 
granted  for  fire  protection,  but  the  defeat  of  the  bill 
providing  for  its  expenditure  rendered  this  amount 
inaccessible. 


IIP  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

FOREST  FIRE  LOSS  IN  CAL         illlllB 

A    000  080  856     8 

The  total  area  of  merchantable  .^.LCOU  m  ^amorma  is, 
approximately,  12,786,306  acres.  The  total  area  of  timber 
land  burned  over  in  California  during  1913  is  61,812  acres. 
The  total  forest  fire  damage  amounted  to  $511,077.00,  an 
amount  adequate  to  maintain  an  efficient  system  of  pro- 
tection for  several  years.  Three  human  lives  were  sac- 
rificed, and  the  lives  of  many  of  our  wild  animals  claimed 
as  toll  for  our  neglect. 

DURING  THE  NEXT  LEGISLATIVE  SESSION. 

The  State  Board  of  Forestry  will  present  another  bill 
in  the  next  legislature.  It  will  embrace  the  same  general 
features  that  were  so  strongly  endorsed  by  the  California 
Federation  of  Women's  Clubs.  Among  these  features 
are: 

1.  The  adoption  of  a  system  of  paid  firewardens  and 
patrols. 

2.  The  designation  and  appropriation  of  a  forest  pro- 
tective fund,  and  the  substance  of  the  proposed  bill  of  1905. 

These  two  features  alone  will  enable  the  State  to  lessen 
the  great  annual  fire  loss.  Let  us,  as  citizens  of  California, 
in  addition  to  our  pride  of  resources  and  climate,  want  to'' 
be  proud  of  our  systematic  forest  protection.  Let  us  do 
our  part  in  solving  the  problem  by  giving  our  support  to 
legislation  directed  toward  the  adoption  of  the  above 
essential  features. 


